On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

White Collar Crime 2017: Prosecutors and Regulators Speak

Released on: Oct. 7, 2017
Running Time: 06:19:20

In recent years, the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, and other U.S. and foreign agencies have pressed forward with a white collar enforcement program of unprecedented scope and severity. The recent changes in the U.S. administration have created additional uncertainty about what to expect in this arena.  With a spotlight on the financial services sector, the authorities have advanced novel theories and have exacting draconian penalties. The government’s enforcement agenda is broad and complex, encompassing foreign corrupt practices, accounting fraud, market manipulation and other trading violations, securities fraud, cyber security, and public corruption.  Based on public statements, the government appears to remain committed to the prosecution of individuals as well as corporations.  

This unique program will give you the background and tools necessary to deal with white collar cases and civil enforcement actions, and to design and implement effective compliance and risk management strategies. You will hear directly from current and former high-level officials in many of the country’s top enforcement agencies – including the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Department of Justice Antitrust Division, and the New York Attorney General’s Office — as well as in-house counsel and leading defense practitioners, about the current and future priorities for the government and the practical implications for your company or clients.

You will learn:

  • Hear an update on the SEC’s enforcement priorities, including fraudulent sales practices, accounting violations, high-frequency trading issues, and insider trading 
  • Learn the Implications for individuals and corporations in the Yates Memo era
  • Congressional investigations: How to manage enforcement and business risks 
  • FCPA investigations and enforcement: Discover the main developments and updates
  • Key takeaways from the lessons from recent white collar trials, and risk areas that compliance and in-house lawyers should be prepared to address
  • Review of criminal antitrust investigations and enforcement: trends and developments

Credit Offered: CLE, CPE, CPD and CFE credit

This program is designed for lawyers who defend and prosecute civil enforcement actions and white collar criminal cases, as well as in-house and outside corporate counsel, and internal auditors and compliance officers. Additionally, government attorneys, forensic accountants, and other experts and consultants who handle white collar internal investigations, civil enforcement actions and criminal prosecutions will find this program extremely valuable.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:19:20]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Introduction* [00:04:34]
    James J. Benjamin, Jr., Martine M. Beamon
  • Review of Significant White Collar Cases and Recent Developments [01:06:22]
    Susan E. Brune, James D. Gatta, James McDonald, Lisa Zornberg, Sanjay Wadhwa
  • Congressional Investigations: How to Manage Enforcement and Business risks [00:57:40]
    Raphael A. Prober, Karen Christian, Myron Marlin, Meredith L. Turner
  • Policing the Markets: Updates on Securities Investigations and Enforcement [01:00:24]
    Karen Patton Seymour, Jacquelyn Kasulis, Telemachus P. Kasulis, Anjan Sahni, Lara Shalov Mehraban
  • Criminal Antitrust Investigations and Enforcement: Trends and Developments [01:00:58]
    Elizabeth Prewitt, Beau W. Buffier, Joseph Muoio, Mark Rosman
  • FCPA Investigations and Enforcement: Developments and Updates [00:59:52]
    F. Joseph Warin, Charles E. Cain, Frances McLeod, Alixandra Smith, Matthew P. Cohen
  • Lessons Learned from Recent White Collar Trials [01:09:30]
    Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, Barry H. Berke, Rita M. Glavin, Daniel Goldman

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Memorandum for all Federal Prosecutors from the Attorney General re: Department Charging and Sentencing Policy (May 10, 2017)
  • Complaint, United States v. Lumiere, No. 16 MAG 3812 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
  • Complaint, SEC v. Lumiere, (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
  • Alissa M. Dolan, Elaine Halchin, Todd Garvey, Walter J. Oleszek, Wendy Ginsberg, Congressional Oversight Manual, Congressional Research Service (December 19, 2014)
    Raphael A. Prober
  • Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Kokesh v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That a Five-Year Statute of Limitations Applies When the SEC Seeks Disgorgement in Enforcement Actions (June 6, 2017)
    Karen Patton Seymour
  • Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, DOJ and SEC Bring Insider Trading Charges for Use of Confidential Government Information Obtained by Consultant (June 6, 2017)
    Karen Patton Seymour
  • Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Court Orders Production in ISDAfix Civil Litigation of Materials Presented to Regulators (January 25, 2017)
    Karen Patton Seymour
  • Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, United States v. Litvak (December 14, 2015)
    Karen Patton Seymour
  • Kaye Scholer LLP, Ch. 6, § 6:1.10; Representing Companies and Individuals in SEC Investigations and Parallel Proceedings, Practising Law Institute, Deskbook on Internal Investigations, Corporate Compliance and White Collar Issues (2nd Edition) (June 2017)
  • “Type C” Leniency: The Antitrust Division’s Newest Leniency Program (August 2017)
    Jeff VanHooreweghe, Mark Rosman
  • Brent Snyder, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Remarks as Prepared for the Yale School of Management, Global Antitrust Enforcement Conference (February 19, 2016)
    Joseph Muoio
  • Frequently Asked Questions About the Antitrust Division’s Leniency Program and Model Leniency Letters, United States Department of Justice (January 26, 2017)
    Joseph Muoio
  • Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2017 Mid-Year FCPA Update (July 10, 2017)
    F. Joseph Warin
  • WilmerHale, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Alert, Global Anti-Bribery Year-in-Review: 2016 Developments and Predictions for 2017 (February 7, 2017)
    Kimberly A. Parker
  • Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant William T. Walters’ Pretrial Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Government Misconduct and for a Hearing, United States v. Walters, S1 16 Cr. 338 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
    Barry H. Berke
  • Government’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, United States v. Walters, S1 16 Cr. 338 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
    Barry H. Berke
  • Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant William T. Walters’ Pretrial Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Government Misconduct and for a Hearing, United States v. Walters, S1 16 Cr. 338 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
    Barry H. Berke
  • Memorandum and Order, United States v. Walters, 16-cr-338 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
    Barry H. Berke
  • Letter-Motion in limine for Defendants, People v. Joel Sanders and Stephen DiCarmine, Ind. No. 773-2014 (N.Y. 2017) (January 5, 2017)
    Rita M. Glavin
  • Letter in opposition to in limine requests for the People, People v. DiCarmine, Sanders, Ind. No. 773/2014 (N.Y. 2017) (January 13, 2017)
    Rita M. Glavin
  • Reply Letter for Defendants, People v. Joel Sanders and Stephen DiCarmine, Ind. No. 773-2014 (N.Y. 2017) (January 16, 2017)
    Rita M. Glavin

Presentation Material


  • FCPA Investigations and Enforcement: Developments and Updates
    Charles E. Cain, Matthew P. Cohen, Frances McLeod, Alixandra Smith, F. Joseph Warin
Co-Chair(s)
Martine M. Beamon ~ Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
James J. Benjamin, Jr. ~ Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Speaker(s)
Barry H. Berke ~ Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Susan E. Brune ~ Brune Law P.C.
Beau W. Buffier ~ Chief, Antitrust Bureau, Office of the New York State Attorney General
Charles E. Cain ~ Acting Chief, FCPA Unit, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Karen Christian ~ General Counsel, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives
Matthew P. Cohen ~ Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
James D. Gatta ~ Chief, Criminal Division , United States Attorneys Office Eastern District Of New York
Rita M. Glavin ~ Seward & Kissel LLP
Daniel Goldman ~ Senior Trial Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York
Jacquelyn Kasulis ~ Chief, Business and Securities Fraud Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York
Telemachus P. Kasulis ~ Co-Chief, Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York
Myron Marlin ~ Managing Director, Strategic Communications, FTI Consulting Inc
James McDonald ~ Director, Enforcement Division, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Frances McLeod ~ Founding Partner, Forensic Risk Alliance
Lara Shalov Mehraban ~ Associate Regional Director, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Joseph Muoio ~ Assistant Chief, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, New York Office
Elizabeth Prewitt ~ Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Raphael A. Prober ~ Akin Gump
Mark Rosman ~ Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Anjan Sahni ~ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Karen Patton Seymour ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Alixandra Smith ~ Deputy Chief, Business and Securities Fraud Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, EDNY
Hon. Richard J. Sullivan ~ United States District Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Meredith L. Turner ~ Managing Director, Associate General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Sanjay Wadhwa ~ Senior Associate Regional Director (Enforcement), New York Regional Office, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
F. Joseph Warin ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Lisa Zornberg ~ Chief, Criminal Division, United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

White Collar Crime 2018: Prosecutors and Regulators Speak (New York, NY) Oct. 3, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

White Collar Crime 2018: Prosecutors and Regulators Speak  
White Collar Crime 2017: Prosecutors and Regulators Speak Martine M Beamon, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
James J Benjamin, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
 
White Collar Crime 2016: Prosecutors and Regulators Speak Steven R Peikin, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
James J Benjamin, Jr., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.